Jump to content
The Education Forum

Richard Randolph Carr


Duke Lane
 Share

Richard Randolph Carr: Witness or Perjuror?  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. Is it likely that Richard Carr was a WWII Army Ranger?

    • Yes
      5
    • No
      3
    • Unsure
      4
  2. 2. Do you believe that he told the truth about what he'd seen - if anything - in Dealey Plaza?

    • Yes
      7
    • No
      4
    • Unsure
      1
  3. 3. What things do you consider "likely true" among those related by Mr. Carr?

    • He was in or near Dealey Plaza
      11
    • He was applying for a construction job at the new county courthouse
      8
    • He was on the sixth or seventh floor of the building
      7
    • He was able to see a man, in detail, from 800 feet away
      5
    • The man was in a "top floor" window
      5
    • The man was in the third window from Houston Street on the FIFTH floor
      2
    • The man was behind the picket fence
      2
    • The man and a gray Rambler were somehow connected
      7
    • The car was driven by a Negro man
      2
    • The car was driven by a Latin man
      3


Recommended Posts

... In a previous post I attached links to on-line writings on Ranger history. In WW2 a special force was established prior to Anzio, this was the called the 6615th Ranger Force. As I recall it was a unit formed of several Ranger and other units.
The 6615th Ranger Force was formed specially for use in Operation Shingle (the Anzio battle). The 1st, 2nd, and 4th United States Ranger Battalions, the 509th Parachute Infantry Battalion, and several other units were molded into a temporary regiment given the name "6615th Ranger Force." Colonel William Orlando Darby, the former commander of the famous 1st Ranger Battalion, became the regimental commanding officer. Lieutenant Colonel Hermann Dammer served as the regimental executive officer.
Also this:
The regular use of the Rangers for conventional missions disturbed many of Darby's men. On 28 November, Major RoY A. Murray, commanding officer of the 4th Ranger Battalion, wrote to the chief, Army Ground Forces, in an effort to resolve certain related problems. ... Murray recommended that the problem be solved by having trained replacements sent to Ranger Force from the 2d and 5th Ranger Battalions that had recently been activated at Camp Forrest, Tennessee.
Nevertheless, I agree with you that it is quite strange that Richard R. Carr's name could not be found among the Rangerroster.org database.
It may be splitting hairs (even tho' some of us are prone to do the same thing when attempting to tie somebody or some group into the assassination), but the way this stuff reads is hardly conclusive:
  • "Several Ranger and other units" suggests that those "other units" were not Ranger units; why not just say "several Ranger units?"
  • That Murray "recommended the problem be solved having trained replacements sent to Ranger Force from the 2d and 5th Ranger Battalions that had recently been activated at Camp Forrest, Tennessee" does not mean that the recommendation was followed through to action.

It would seem to me that Rangers from the 2nd and 5th would be assimilated into a like unit - a Ranger unit - rather than being simply a detachment of a "recently activated" unit half-way around the world. Strengthening the 1st, 3rd and 4th using "new" - but nevertheless trained - Rangers makes perfect sense, but leaving them as a separate detachment does not: a chain of command must exist, and it is unlikely that a company-sized unit would stand on its own, administratively or otherwise, with its own identity during any sort of military operation; at the very least, they would have been assigned to temporary duty (TDY) as being attached to one of the other battalion(s), in which case I'd think they would have said that they "fought with the 4th" rather than with a battalion that wasn't even there as a battalion.

Carr also pointed out that it was the 5th that was "annihilated" with only "13 men left in the Fifth Ranger Battalion." The 5th as a unit survived Anzio essentially intact - even if several of its members were detached to the 6615th - since the 5th was in the north Atlantic, and not in Italy. To say that "the 5th Ranger Battalion" was "annihilated" is simply untrue.

We have also seen that the majority of the 1st and 3rd survived Anzio, albeit quite a large number apparently as POWs. There were 36 who were wounded and presumably not captured, but there is no indication that they had anything at all to do with the 5th, and 36 is certainly a greater number than 13. Only 12 were actually killed, which out of a force of approximately 800 (743 + 12 + 36 = 791), making it a far cry from having been "annihilated." The magical number "13" doesn't seem to fit into the scenario at all.

The only apparent record of the 5th - or any part of it - having taken part in Operation Shingle is Murray's recommendation that some of them be used to supplement the existing force. The official histories do not show that Murray's recommendation was followed, and if it was, I'd posit that it was done by transferring Rangers of the 5th to another battalion, not simply taking an independent detachment temporarily.

But ultimately it comes down to why Richard Randolph Carr does not appear in their roster. Is he a lone anomoly, was his service history erased because of his appearance in Shaw, or was he simply just not what he claimed to be? The preponderance of the evidence weighs in for the last.

In the end, what reason is there to believe that, entirely independent of our discussion and the JFK assassination in general, researchers with no axe to grind and who were attempting to compile a definitive list of WWII Rangers would omit this man alone from among their ranks? Coincidence or conspiracy? Or just the simple fact that Richard Randolph Carr was never a Ranger?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

... In a previous post I attached links to on-line writings on Ranger history. In WW2 a special force was established prior to Anzio, this was the called the 6615th Ranger Force. As I recall it was a unit formed of several Ranger and other units.
The 6615th Ranger Force was formed specially for use in Operation Shingle (the Anzio battle). The 1st, 2nd, and 4th United States Ranger Battalions, the 509th Parachute Infantry Battalion, and several other units were molded into a temporary regiment given the name "6615th Ranger Force." Colonel William Orlando Darby, the former commander of the famous 1st Ranger Battalion, became the regimental commanding officer. Lieutenant Colonel Hermann Dammer served as the regimental executive officer.
Also this:
The regular use of the Rangers for conventional missions disturbed many of Darby's men. On 28 November, Major RoY A. Murray, commanding officer of the 4th Ranger Battalion, wrote to the chief, Army Ground Forces, in an effort to resolve certain related problems. ... Murray recommended that the problem be solved by having trained replacements sent to Ranger Force from the 2d and 5th Ranger Battalions that had recently been activated at Camp Forrest, Tennessee.
Nevertheless, I agree with you that it is quite strange that Richard R. Carr's name could not be found among the Rangerroster.org database.
It may be splitting hairs (even tho' some of us are prone to do the same thing when attempting to tie somebody or some group into the assassination), but the way this stuff reads is hardly conclusive:
  • "Several Ranger and other units" suggests that those "other units" were not Ranger units; why not just say "several Ranger units?"
  • That Murray "recommended the problem be solved having trained replacements sent to Ranger Force from the 2d and 5th Ranger Battalions that had recently been activated at Camp Forrest, Tennessee" does not mean that the recommendation was followed through to action.

It would seem to me that Rangers from the 2nd and 5th would be assimilated into a like unit - a Ranger unit - rather than being simply a detachment of a "recently activated" unit half-way around the world. Strengthening the 1st, 3rd and 4th using "new" - but nevertheless trained - Rangers makes perfect sense, but leaving them as a separate detachment does not: a chain of command must exist, and it is unlikely that a company-sized unit would stand on its own, administratively or otherwise, with its own identity during any sort of military operation; at the very least, they would have been assigned to temporary duty (TDY) as being attached to one of the other battalion(s), in which case I'd think they would have said that they "fought with the 4th" rather than with a battalion that wasn't even there as a battalion.

Carr also pointed out that it was the 5th that was "annihilated" with only "13 men left in the Fifth Ranger Battalion." The 5th as a unit survived Anzio essentially intact - even if several of its members were detached to the 6615th - since the 5th was in the north Atlantic, and not in Italy. To say that "the 5th Ranger Battalion" was "annihilated" is simply untrue.

We have also seen that the majority of the 1st and 3rd survived Anzio, albeit quite a large number apparently as POWs. There were 36 who were wounded and presumably not captured, but there is no indication that they had anything at all to do with the 5th, and 36 is certainly a greater number than 13. Only 12 were actually killed, which out of a force of approximately 800 (743 + 12 + 36 = 791), making it a far cry from having been "annihilated." The magical number "13" doesn't seem to fit into the scenario at all.

The only apparent record of the 5th - or any part of it - having taken part in Operation Shingle is Murray's recommendation that some of them be used to supplement the existing force. The official histories do not show that Murray's recommendation was followed, and if it was, I'd posit that it was done by transferring Rangers of the 5th to another battalion, not simply taking an independent detachment temporarily.

But ultimately it comes down to why Richard Randolph Carr does not appear in their roster. Is he a lone anomoly, was his service history erased because of his appearance in Shaw, or was he simply just not what he claimed to be? The preponderance of the evidence weighs in for the last.

In the end, what reason is there to believe that, entirely independent of our discussion and the JFK assassination in general, researchers with no axe to grind and who were attempting to compile a definitive list of WWII Rangers would omit this man alone from among their ranks? Coincidence or conspiracy? Or just the simple fact that Richard Randolph Carr was never a Ranger?

I thought RRC's date and place of death were established and we were waiting on a local newspaper obit that would explain a lot of things and give us names of living relatives?

While I didn't consider it before, your suggestion that Carr's record as a Ranger was deliberately withdrawn from the files isn't that outlandish, especially if it is true that somebody tried to kill him and others were upset at his testimony.

They did change Oswald's discharge status, they destroyed Oswald's DOD file in the 70s, and they do play Orwellian games with the files, but they can't alter and destroy them all.

I have a gut feeling that Carr was a comat veteran, and did see what he says he saw, and he viewed it from the building construction girders that are no longer there, and that's why the line of sight is now different.

Like all witnesses, Carr can be easily disgraced once targeted and disected, but I don't consider hiim a "crackpot," as Gary Mack has characterized him.

Nor do I see the signifiance of his testimony, other than being one of dozens of witnesses who provide suspects other than the accused assassin.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize to the other readers of this thread in asking where you get off using the pronoun "we" with respect to any research that's been done along these lines, other than your demanding it of others. And now that it's been nearly completed to your apparent (dis)satisfaction, you now seem to be in the process of suggesting that it's of little merit or consequence anyway in favor of your "gut feeling."

Do you think, as even a remote impossibility, that such an outlook is why those who don't toe the WC "party line" are considered "crackpots" themselves, especially when even the research that they themselves commission (as you did in this case) and are unwilling to do themselves (as you haven't) doesn't agree with their own preconceived notions (like you're suggesting it doesn't and like the WC did with its own) - they backpedal on and proclaim it meaningless?

Goose ... Gander ... See a correlation here somewhere?

The "truth" is as we proclaim it to be whether or not the facts support such a proclamation. If the facts don't support our theory, there's something wrong with the facts, not our theory.

That would be the WC's mantra, just as it is apparently your own.

I don't suspect, however, that it will preclude you taking credit for this somewhere along the line, if that's the way the wind blows. You are a fool if this is the kind of "evidence" that you believe you can take before anyone willing and able to convene a grand jury at any level outside of Podunk, Nowhere.

While Antti and I are debating the fine points, you're just dismissing it all because it doesn't conform to your "gut feel."

I suspect, however, that your whine will be louder than our protests, so just go ahead and have it your way. Just tell us what the facts are and save us a whole lot of our time proving what you don't want to hear or acknowledge and will disavow or disparage in any case.

Edited by Duke Lane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize to the other readers of this thread in asking where you get off using the pronoun "we" with respect to any research that's been done along these lines, other than your demanding it of others. And now that it's been nearly completed to your apparent (dis)satisfaction, you now seem to be in the process of suggesting that it's of little merit or consequence anyway in favor of your "gut feeling."

Duke, I guess you're talking to me here, but I don't know what you're talking about. Everyone looks at everything and decides on there on what is important and what's not and what to believe and what not to believe.

Do you think, as even a remote impossibility, that such an outlook is why those who don't toe the WC "party line" are considered "crackpots" themselves,

Those who don't toe thw WC party line are only considered "crackpots" by those who toe the line, right?

"Crackpot" is the word Gary Mack has applied to Richard Randolph Carr. So far I consider him a Dealey Plaza witness and combat veteran who fought for us to have the freedom to call him a "crackpot," or he's a fake vet and xxxx, and most dispiciple perjurer, as you have portrayed him. But he can't be both.

especially when even the research that they themselves commission (as you did in this case)

How did I commission this research?

and are unwilling to do themselves (as you haven't)

Wait a minute, I also looked into the history of the Rangers, and followed the history of the Casablanca and Anzio campaigns and found the graves of "US Rangers 5th Bat" at each, which makes me believe that they were there even though their official history doesn't have them there, and Carr isn't listed among the official Rangers. I learned that the Rangers fought the Vicy French at Casablanca and two complete battalions were wiped out in the failed breakout at Anzio, both fascinating battles that I wouldn't have learned anything about if it wasn't for you and Mr. Carr.

doesn't agree with their own preconceived notions

My notions aren't preconceived, but are ever changing and so far are based on the story of Richard Randolph Carr, how it came to be known, what he said happened, and how it jives with the testimony of others at the scene. What's preconceived about that?

(like you're suggesting it doesn't and like the WC did with its own) - they backpedal on and proclaim it meaningless?

Who said it's meaningless? I said Carr's testimony is not significant overall other than to contribute to the body of evidence that there are other Dealey Plaza suspects besides Oswald and the Sixth Floor sniper (that's two different suspects in my book).

Goose ... Gander ... See a correlation here somewhere?

The "truth" is as we proclaim it to be whether or not the facts support such a proclamation. If the facts don't support our theory, there's something wrong with the facts, not our theory.

The truth is what YOU believe it to be, not what I believe or tell you to believe.

That would be the WC's mantra, just as it is apparently your own.

I don't suspect, however, that it will preclude you taking credit for this somewhere along the line, if that's the way the wind blows.

Why would I or anyone try to take credit for anything? For discrediting a witness? You can have all the credit in the world for discrediting Carr. He's all yours.

You are a fool if this is the kind of "evidence" that you believe you can take before anyone willing and able to convene a grand jury at any level outside of Podunk, Nowhere.

Carr does not make the cut when it comes to what I think is important. None of the evidence that I would present to a grand jury is on the internet, or has even been discussed on this forum or anywhere.

While Antti and I are debating the fine points, you're just dismissing it all because it doesn't conform to your "gut feel."

I haven't dismissed anything. I thought we were waiting for a newspaper obit for Mr. Carr to see what it says about his military service and possible living relatives?

I suspect, however, that your whine will be louder than our protests, so just go ahead and have it your way. Just tell us what the facts are and save us a whole lot of our time proving what you don't want to hear or acknowledge and will disavow or disparage in any case.

Since you still haven't bothered to address me by my name, I still take it you are refering to me here, and now the real Duke comes out.

I can take it if it can be shown that Carr was never a combat veteran, and will appologize to you if he wasn't, but you should do the same if he was a veteran.

Just find an obit.

Also, what's the results of your poll? What do most people believe? Or do they care?

The Unamed, unacknowledged, disavowed and disparaged, commissoner of Duke's wasted time.

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

William Kelly Posted Yesterday, 08:47 PM

It may be splitting hairs (even tho' some of us are prone to do the same thing when attempting to tie somebody or some group into the assassination), but the way this stuff reads is hardly conclusive:

"Several Ranger and other units" suggests that those "other units" were not Ranger units; why not just say "several Ranger units?"

That Murray "recommended the problem be solved having trained replacements sent to Ranger Force from the 2d and 5th Ranger Battalions that had recently been activated at Camp Forrest, Tennessee" does not mean that the recommendation was followed through to action.

It would seem to me that Rangers from the 2nd and 5th would be assimilated into a like unit - a Ranger unit - rather than being simply a detachment of a "recently activated" unit half-way around the world. Strengthening the 1st, 3rd and 4th using "new" - but nevertheless trained - Rangers makes perfect sense, but leaving them as a separate detachment does not: a chain of command must exist, and it is unlikely that a company-sized unit would stand on its own, administratively or otherwise, with its own identity during any sort of military operation; at the very least, they would have been assigned to temporary duty (TDY) as being attached to one of the other battalion(s), in which case I'd think they would have said that they "fought with the 4th" rather than with a battalion that wasn't even there as a battalion.

does not mean that the recommendation was followed through to action

Agreed. That was all I could find on the internet on this issue.

Carr also pointed out that it was the 5th that was "annihilated" with only "13 men left in the Fifth Ranger Battalion." The 5th as a unit survived Anzio essentially intact - even if several of its members were detached to the 6615th - since the 5th was in the north Atlantic, and not in Italy. To say that "the 5th Ranger Battalion" was "annihilated" is simply untrue.

True. Carr was wrong about this. See below.

We have also seen that the majority of the 1st and 3rd survived Anzio, albeit quite a large number apparently as POWs. There were 36 who were wounded and presumably not captured, but there is no indication that they had anything at all to do with the 5th, and 36 is certainly a greater number than 13. Only 12 were actually killed, which out of a force of approximately 800 (743 + 12 + 36 = 791), making it a far cry from having been "annihilated." The magical number "13" doesn't seem to fit into the scenario at all.

Yes, 13 doesn't fit, Carr's statement about the events of the 5th Battalion does not jive with the known facts. I will allow for the moment that Carr misspoke about the (3rd vs. 5th vs. 6615th Force) unit and probably meant by "annihilated" that the enemy had beaten the battalion by killing a few and had taken pretty much all the rest of them as prisoners. However, I agree that one would think that those who were part of that unit, would have these facts straight.

I know that my description in an earlier sentence does not explain the word "annihilated" properly.

The only apparent record of the 5th - or any part of it - having taken part in Operation Shingle is Murray's recommendation that some of them be used to supplement the existing force. The official histories do not show that Murray's recommendation was followed, and if it was, I'd posit that it was done by transferring Rangers of the 5th to another battalion, not simply taking an independent detachment temporarily.

You're probably right about this.

But ultimately it comes down to why Richard Randolph Carr does not appear in their roster. Is he a lone anomoly, was his service history erased because of his appearance in Shaw, or was he simply just not what he claimed to be? The preponderance of the evidence weighs in for the last.

The fact that Carr didn't state the historical record of the 5th battalion correctly as well as the fact that his name is not in the roster, do definitely support the idea that Carr exaggerated his military experiences in WW2.

In the end, what reason is there to believe that, entirely independent of our discussion and the JFK assassination in general, researchers with no axe to grind and who were attempting to compile a definitive list of WWII Rangers would omit this man alone from among their ranks? Coincidence or conspiracy? Or just the simple fact that Richard Randolph Carr was never a Ranger?

At this point, with the facts you have gathered it certainly seems like he may not have been a Ranger.

However, It'll be interesting to see what information we could gather from Myrtle and/or the other next of kin. Perhaps they still have a WW2 era "Ranger" badge of his, and some photos of his lying around. The roster may also be incomplete for some reason. Who knows.

If somehow Carr's Ranger background did turn out to be correct, it would definitely add to his credibility, unfortunately, the opposite applies as well.

It'll be interesting to see what else we can find out about him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... The "truth" is as we proclaim it to be whether or not the facts support such a proclamation. If the facts don't support our theory, there's something wrong with the facts, not our theory.
The truth is what YOU believe it to be, not what I believe or tell you to believe.
The truth is simply the truth; it has nothing to do with anyone's interpretation of it. Facts are readily observable by all, regardless of what they believe. "Faith" better fits the definition you've given. Murders may be "solved" by faith, but one would hope suspects aren't turned into convicts by that measure.
Why would I or anyone try to take credit for anything? For discrediting a witness? You can have all the credit in the world for discrediting Carr. He's all yours.
You make it sound like some sort of sin to expose someone who merely claims to have been a witness when in fact they weren't. If not now, then certainly before.
... While Antti and I are debating the fine points, you're just dismissing it all because it doesn't conform to your "gut feel."
I haven't dismissed anything. I thought we were waiting for a newspaper obit for Mr. Carr to see what it says about his military service and possible living relatives?
I am. And when I get it - one has been found - then I'll let everyone know what it says.
I can take it if it can be shown that Carr was never a combat veteran, and will appologize to you if he wasn't, but you should do the same if he was a veteran. Just find an obit.
No, we are waiting to find out if Carr is as he said he was: a US Army Ranger. That he was a veteran, even possibly a combat veteran, is not at issue: we know for an almost certain fact that he was in the Army during WWII, and quite a large number of people saw action without being part of an elite squad. Of course, if we find he was stationed with Jack Dougherty the whole time ...! ;^)

The question is whether he was a Ranger, not if he was either a veteran or even a combat veteran, but a Ranger.

If Carr was not a US Army Ranger where he said he was and with the record he claimed, then he swore under oath to some things that were simply not true. If he was willing to try to impress the court with credentials that he did not have - why not just say he was in Europe from 1942-45? Surely he'd have had plenty of opportunity to hear small-arms fire without having to falsely claim any sort of "elite" status - then it leads one to wonder what else he was willing to exaggerate, embellish or simply concoct from whole cloth. If he was willing to falsely claim something that was not substantive to his testimony, can we be certain that he didn't falsely claim things that were substantive?

And given his earlier (1964 and 1967) accounts, it certainly appears that he did change and embellish and concoct things that people take as truth when very possibly they shouldn't.

I would not have been "wasting my time" if you - who doesn't even consider it important - didn't try to shore up those concoctions as possible truths when it should be clear that they are at least not entirely truthful, and probably not truthful at all. Like the fact that you can't see most of Houston Street east of the TSBD, yet he claims to have seen some very potentially significant things, and there is just no circumventing that fact. That alone should close the argument.

Edited by Duke Lane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke Lane

Feb 5 2009, 07:43 PM

QUOTE(Thomas Graves @ Feb 3 2009, 02:16 AM)

Dear Detective Lane,

Isn't it reasonable to assume that the only way Carr was able to discern that the man in the window was wearing any kind of glasses at all was because he (the man) was wearing glasses with frames sufficiently thick and dark-colored as to make them visible to an observer some 250 yards away? The sort of glasses that Richard Cain was known to wear, for example?

I am, as always, totally subservient to you sir as I am, well let's face it, just a lowly "beat cop" and well, you do far outrank me. Sir. LOL -- Thomas Graves

Oh, by the way, I wonder what kind of glasses Malcolm (Mac) Wallace was wearing in the Fall of 1963?

I wouldn't know about the "rank" thing since USAF SPs and OSI aren't real cops anyway and wouldn't have any valid investigatory experience. I bow to the "lowly" beat cop every time.

Which floor were both(?) Mac Wallace and Richard Cain on, the "fifth" or the "top" floor? I can't remember, but they were on one of those two floors based on the keen observations of Mr. Carr. If you're going to claim that they were on the sixth floor, then it wasn't either of them that Carr saw.

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Feb 3 2009, 05:25 AM)

... I am now convinced that Richard Randolph Carr is indeed the man born in Georgia in 1922, enlisted in the Army in 1942 and passed away in West Virginia in 1996. That is, I'm 90% sure he is also the man who witnessed the JFK assassination. ...

The Inter Mountain News had a brief announcement of the death of Richard R. Carr on August 5, 1996, followed by a longer one (2-3 paragraphs) on August 6. He died in a Veterans Hospital in Clarksburg, WV, which, it being a US Government facility, might explain the issuance of a death certificate by the State of Georgia (if that info is correct in SSDI). Said Richard R. Carr was born in Fulton, GA; I do not know if it indicated whether he ever lived in Dallas. A "long list" of his survivors is to be found in the longer article. The article also indicates that he served during WWII, but I don't yet know any additional details.

These should reach me in the next couple of days. I'll post what they have to say - or scan them - when I've received them. After that, if the article doesn't say, we'll find out if he and Richard Randolph Carr of Dallas fame are one and the same man.

Duke,

On another note: I'm sure the Newspaper will deliver what they said they had on him. I'm just wondering how a letter can take more than 5 days to travel from WV to TX?

I recall that packages sent to/from Europe, will normally arrive on the other side of "the puddle" (door to door) in 4-7 days.

Hmmm... talk about "snail mail".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke,

On another note: I'm sure the Newspaper will deliver what they said they had on him. I'm just wondering how a letter can take more than 5 days to travel from WV to TX? I recall that packages sent to/from Europe, will normally arrive on the other side of "the puddle" (door to door) in 4-7 days. Hmmm... talk about "snail mail".

I know, Antti. Here it is almost another week later and nothing in today's mail either. University intra-mail (a day's delay?) coupled with President's Day, when the government stood still for a day, and a weekend intervening? Kevin at the West Virginia University Libary archives (304-293-0351), whose staff researched the question, might provide some insight? Maybe they forgot to charge me - or even ask how to charge me! - and as a result haven't sent it yet? I'm as in the dark as you are. It was 8:22 a.m. on February 5 when he called me to tell me it was "on its way." I'm waiting with bated breath!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lately mail, particularly parcels, has taken longer to go cross Oz. I figure that it's to do with a slowdown due to the necessities of natonal security, which is a good thing. (Also on occasion for various reasons I've not fulfilled promises to send something, it somehow moves out of the immediate priorties list. On an other hand I've given up on the promised receipt of a vcr showing the 'real' Anwar Sadat assassination. about 3 years and counting. Not gonna happen.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obituary of Richard R. Carr, Inter Mountain News, Monday, August 5, 1996:

Richard R. Carr, 75, of Norton, passed away Sunday morning, Aug. 4, 1996, in the Louis A. Johnson Veterans Administration Hospital in Clarksburg following an extended illness.

Funeral Arrangements are incomplete and will be under the direction of the Toblyn Funeral Home of Elkins.

An extended obituary followed in the Inter Mountain News, on Tuesday, August 6, 1996:

Richard R. Carr, 75, of Norton, passed away Sunday morning, Aug. 4, 1996, in the Louis A. Johnson Veterans Administration Hospital in Clarksburg following an extended illness.

Mr. Carr was born April 29, 1921, in Atlanta, Ga., a son of the late Walter H. and Olie Mathis Carr.

He was married to Myrtle Bodkins Carr, who survives at Norton.

Also surviving are two sons, Walter T. Hogue, Texas, and Richard F. Hogue, Ohio; three stepsons, Elwood Sites, Elkins, and Richard and David Barns; one daughter, Nancy M. Houge, Texas; two stepdaughters, Winifred Lambert, Wymer, and Joyce Barnes; one sister, Betty Anderson, East Point, Ga.; three grandchildren and three step grandchildren.

He was preceded in death by one son, Randy; three brothers; and two sisters.

Mr. Carr was a retired iron worker and construction superintendent. He was a veteran of the U.S. Army, having served during World War II, and was a member of the Roaring Creek Post No. 5583 Veterans of Foreign Wars.

At the request of the deceased, his remains were cremated. Memorial contributions may be made to the American Diabetes Association, P.O. Box 1115, Dunbar, W.Va. 25064, or to the Roaring Creek Post No. 5583 Veterans of Foreign Wars, Coalton, W.Va. The Tomblyn Funeral Home of Elkins is in charge of the arrangements.

His being a retired iron worker is a strong suggestion that this is, in fact, the same Richard Randolph Carr we've been discussing. Deceased at 75, he would be approaching his 88th birthday this year.

There are two Walter Hogues listed in Tyler, Texas, one apparently aged 72, 16 years younger than Richard Carr (I don't know why sons would have a different last name unless they were born out of wedlock and he and the mother never married). There are five Richard Hogues listed in Ohio, one being 53 (RRC @ 35), another 73 (RRC @ 15), another 55 (RRC @ 33) and one 69 (RRC @ 19). There is also one Nancy Hogue, whose age might be 85 (RRC @ 2, a prodigy!).

There is also an Elwood N. Sites II in Elkins, aged 51. How the step-children and step-grandchildren are related is unknown; are they Myrtle's kids from a former marriage? It would also appear, based on the extended obit, that the Carrs who also live in Norton, WV, are not Richard's (immediate or close) family.

The Tomblyn Funeral Home is still in business, located ironically enough on Randolph Avenue! Coincidentally, they have also confirmed that the street name they're on is the same as the middle name of the man they cremated in 1996 ... that is, the retired iron worker in these obituaries is indeed Richard Randolph Carr.

His treatment in the VA Hospital as well as his VFW membership (requires active duty service in a theater of war; the American Legion, by contrast, only requires active duty service during a time of conflict without regard to where the service was completed) validates his status as an Army veteran, but unfortunately, none of this verifies his service as a US Army Ranger.

Before moving onto the next step of contacting any of his relatives, perhaps it will be worthwhile to compile questions that we would like to have answered. I will do so for myself and post them here, and hope that we'll have a bit more input before moving forward. Questions should not be confrontational, and pending a first set of responses, they should come from only one person ... and I'm nominating me for that! :ice

What else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good going Duke, you found the elusive obit.

What do you mean questions should not be confrontational? You mean you're not going to tell them if Carr wasn't a real Ranger you've already called him perjurer?

Of course you want to find out if he was a Ranger, but regardless, find out what outfit he was in, and what campaign badges he got - Casablanca? Anzio?

It would also be nice if his family or the VFW has any records, news clips or photos etc. of his military service, or his adventure at Dealey Plaza?

You could also ask them if he ever talked about combat experiences or DP?

Thanks, and a feather in your cap,

BK

Obituary of Richard R. Carr, Inter Mountain News, Monday, August 5, 1996:

Richard R. Carr, 75, of Norton, passed away Sunday morning, Aug. 4, 1996, in the Louis A. Johnson Veterans Administration Hospital in Clarksburg following an extended illness.

Funeral Arrangements are incomplete and will be under the direction of the Toblyn Funeral Home of Elkins.

An extended obituary followed in the Inter Mountain News, on Tuesday, August 6, 1996:

Richard R. Carr, 75, of Norton, passed away Sunday morning, Aug. 4, 1996, in the Louis A. Johnson Veterans Administration Hospital in Clarksburg following an extended illness.

Mr. Carr was born April 29, 1921, in Atlanta, Ga., a son of the late Walter H. and Olie Mathis Carr.

He was married to Myrtle Bodkins Carr, who survives at Norton.

Also surviving are two sons, Walter T. Hogue, Texas, and Richard F. Hogue, Ohio; three stepsons, Elwood Sites, Elkins, and Richard and David Barns; one daughter, Nancy M. Houge, Texas; two stepdaughters, Winifred Lambert, Wymer, and Joyce Barnes; one sister, Betty Anderson, East Point, Ga.; three grandchildren and three step grandchildren.

He was preceded in death by one son, Randy; three brothers; and two sisters.

Mr. Carr was a retired iron worker and construction superintendent. He was a veteran of the U.S. Army, having served during World War II, and was a member of the Roaring Creek Post No. 5583 Veterans of Foreign Wars.

At the request of the deceased, his remains were cremated. Memorial contributions may be made to the American Diabetes Association, P.O. Box 1115, Dunbar, W.Va. 25064, or to the Roaring Creek Post No. 5583 Veterans of Foreign Wars, Coalton, W.Va. The Tomblyn Funeral Home of Elkins is in charge of the arrangements.

His being a retired iron worker is a strong suggestion that this is, in fact, the same Richard Randolph Carr we've been discussing. Deceased at 75, he would be approaching his 88th birthday this year.

There are two Walter Hogues listed in Tyler, Texas, one apparently aged 72, 16 years younger than Richard Carr (I don't know why sons would have a different last name unless they were born out of wedlock and he and the mother never married). There are five Richard Hogues listed in Ohio, one being 53 (RRC @ 35), another 73 (RRC @ 15), another 55 (RRC @ 33) and one 69 (RRC @ 19). There is also one Nancy Hogue, whose age might be 85 (RRC @ 2, a prodigy!).

There is also an Elwood N. Sites II in Elkins, aged 51. How the step-children and step-grandchildren are related is unknown; are they Myrtle's kids from a former marriage? It would also appear, based on the extended obit, that the Carrs who also live in Norton, WV, are not Richard's (immediate or close) family.

The Tomblyn Funeral Home is still in business, located ironically enough on Randolph Avenue! Coincidentally, they have also confirmed that the street name they're on is the same as the middle name of the man they cremated in 1996 ... that is, the retired iron worker in these obituaries is indeed Richard Randolph Carr.

His treatment in the VA Hospital as well as his VFW membership (requires active duty service in a theater of war; the American Legion, by contrast, only requires active duty service during a time of conflict without regard to where the service was completed) validates his status as an Army veteran, but unfortunately, none of this verifies his service as a US Army Ranger.

Before moving onto the next step of contacting any of his relatives, perhaps it will be worthwhile to compile questions that we would like to have answered. I will do so for myself and post them here, and hope that we'll have a bit more input before moving forward. Questions should not be confrontational, and pending a first set of responses, they should come from only one person ... and I'm nominating me for that! :ice

What else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few points:

1) The obit wasn't "elusive;" I just don't think anyone has ever looked for it before.

2) I'm not going to tell them anything about RRC's service; I want them to tell me. I might say that there's some question about that and ask if they have anything - commendation medals, citations, etc. - that would support that, and also that RRC's name isn't on the RangerRoster, so that if he actually was a Ranger, I can - and will - forward that information to appropriate people to ensure that his name is added to it. I'm a pit bull that way, y'know ... in case you didn't realize I'm a pit bull at all, in any way, about anything!! :ice

3) I doubt if the VFW has any substantive records. But I'm pretty closely associated with the V and many of its officers in many locations including at state and national levels, so don't think I'll have a problem getting info if they ever got it and it's still available. I will look into it.

I've had a few emails with questions, and will try to post a somewhat-comprehensive list of what those might be, whether they be initial or follow-up questions. Let's see what comes to the fore....

Thanks as ever for the input!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few points:

1) The obit wasn't "elusive;" I just don't think anyone has ever looked for it before.

2) I'm not going to tell them anything about RRC's service; I want them to tell me. I might say that there's some question about that and ask if they have anything - commendation medals, citations, etc. - that would support that, and also that RRC's name isn't on the RangerRoster, so that if he actually was a Ranger, I can - and will - forward that information to appropriate people to ensure that his name is added to it. I'm a pit bull that way, y'know ... in case you didn't realize I'm a pit bull at all, in any way, about anything!! :ice

3) I doubt if the VFW has any substantive records. But I'm pretty closely associated with the V and many of its officers in many locations including at state and national levels, so don't think I'll have a problem getting info if they ever got it and it's still available. I will look into it.

I've had a few emails with questions, and will try to post a somewhat-comprehensive list of what those might be, whether they be initial or follow-up questions. Let's see what comes to the fore....

Thanks as ever for the input!

Nice work, I have a lot of obit's but Richard Carr's wasn't one of them and my search didn't bear any fruit, thanks for posting the obituary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke,

Thanks for going through the trouble of obtaining RR Carr's obituary and typing&posting it here.

Here are my questions to his next of kin:

1 What branch or unit of the army did RRC serve for during WW2?

2 (Depending on reply to 1) Do they have any photos or documentation they could share with us to clear up his Ranger status?

3 What are your most vivid recollections of RRC's testimonies regarding the JFK assassination?

4 As, I understand it, RRC was a victim of physical violence due to the fact that he made statements about what he had seen in Dallas on 11/22/63. Do you agree that these assaults on him were connected to his testifying?

5 Can you reiterate what RRC said about the events that occurred in Dallas during and immediately following the assassination?

6 Is there anything in particular, that you think researchers should know about RRC and the Dallas events?

AMH

Edited by Antti Hynonen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...